Author Topic: Hazegrayart Master Thread  (Read 38361 times)

Offline catdlr

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12508
  • Enthusiast since the Redstones
  • Marina del Rey, California, USA
  • Liked: 10232
  • Likes Given: 8517
Re: Hazegrayart Master Thread
« Reply #40 on: 07/05/2023 04:20 am »
Quote
Think the lit up areas of the Moon in the future will be much dimmer than in Hazegrayart's video. The sensible thing to do is go underground for radiation protection and thermal stability. So Lunar top side infrastructure will likely be minimal. ;)


Agree,  for radiation protection perhaps on the back side (away from the sun), but then it's too cold. Underground seems to be the way to go unless you're one of those: "Inhumans".   ;)
« Last Edit: 07/05/2023 04:21 am by catdlr »
It's Tony De La Rosa, ...I don't create this stuff, I just report it.

Online Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15716
  • Liked: 8348
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Hazegrayart Master Thread
« Reply #41 on: 07/05/2023 04:49 pm »

Think the lit up areas of the Moon in the future will be much dimmer than in Hazegrayart's video. The sensible thing to do is go underground for radiation protection and thermal stability. So Lunar top side infrastructure will likely be minimal. ;)

And I've always thought that's one of the great ironies about concepts for space settlement--go all the way to the Moon or Mars, and then live in a cave. I mean, if you want to live in a cave, you can easily do that on Earth.


Offline TrevorMonty

Re: Hazegrayart Master Thread
« Reply #42 on: 07/05/2023 04:58 pm »

Think the lit up areas of the Moon in the future will be much dimmer than in Hazegrayart's video. The sensible thing to do is go underground for radiation protection and thermal stability. So Lunar top side infrastructure will likely be minimal. ;)

And I've always thought that's one of the great ironies about concepts for space settlement--go all the way to the Moon or Mars, and then live in a cave. I mean, if you want to live in a cave, you can easily do that on Earth.
Yet settle Mars crowd think millions will want to do that for rest of their days.  Lockdown has give people a taste of living permanently indoors.
On Moon have option to rotate back to earth on regular basis which is likely to be case for an industrial base their.

 

Online Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15716
  • Liked: 8348
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Hazegrayart Master Thread
« Reply #43 on: 07/05/2023 06:23 pm »
Yet settle Mars crowd think millions will want to do that for rest of their days. 

Well, you might have a really great view of the surface through a tiny porthole, or a periscope.


Lockdown has give people a taste of living permanently indoors. 

And it's been great, huh?


Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39364
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25393
  • Likes Given: 12165
Re: Hazegrayart Master Thread
« Reply #44 on: 07/05/2023 06:54 pm »
Not needed for the most part. Radiation level on the surface of Mars is no higher than in ISS. People could live almost their whole adult lives on Mars going outside as often as the average American and still have less risk to their health than smoking cigarettes.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: Hazegrayart Master Thread
« Reply #45 on: 07/05/2023 10:23 pm »
Not needed for the most part. Radiation level on the surface of Mars is no higher than in ISS. People could live almost their whole adult lives on Mars going outside as often as the average American and still have less risk to their health than smoking cigarettes.
What are they going to do outside in a spacesuit?. For exploring rover will be quicker both to enter and travel.

Offline laszlo

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 988
  • Liked: 1322
  • Likes Given: 594
Re: Hazegrayart Master Thread
« Reply #46 on: 07/06/2023 10:24 am »
Think the lit up areas of the Moon in the future will be much dimmer than in Hazegrayart's video. The sensible thing to do is go underground for radiation protection and thermal stability. So Lunar top side infrastructure will likely be minimal. ;)

My thought was that the lunar settlements would actually be invisible during the lunar night. The kind of lighting seen in the video is what we have here on Earth, the result of centuries of thoughtless surface illumination. Lunar settlements, by definition, would be planned and balance actual lighting requirements with resource utilization. Wasting kilo- or megawatts of power sending light skywards for no reason would not happen. Assuming there was surface lighting at all, it would be directed only toward the areas where it was actually needed. Remember, there are no clouds on the Moon so, except for near the poles or during a lunar eclipse, earthlight  would be a constantly available resource during most of the lunar night on the side facing the Earth. Even during a lunar eclipse the Earth's atmosphere would be bending light towards the moon. Any artificial lighting would only need to augment the existing natural light.

Another problem I have with that video is that the lighting patterns seem to be showing atmospheric fuzzing effects seen on orbital photos of the Earth.

I'm putting this one into the nice try category, though it will probably show up in future sci-fi productions.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39364
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25393
  • Likes Given: 12165
Re: Hazegrayart Master Thread
« Reply #47 on: 07/06/2023 03:13 pm »
Not needed for the most part. Radiation level on the surface of Mars is no higher than in ISS. People could live almost their whole adult lives on Mars going outside as often as the average American and still have less risk to their health than smoking cigarettes.
What are they going to do outside in a spacesuit?. For exploring rover will be quicker both to enter and travel.
Sure. But I assume this is something people would want to do. And I don’t think the current EVA process will be unchanged. More like technical diving and less the bulky suit used now.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline catdlr

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12508
  • Enthusiast since the Redstones
  • Marina del Rey, California, USA
  • Liked: 10232
  • Likes Given: 8517
Re: Hazegrayart Master Thread
« Reply #48 on: 07/07/2023 09:52 pm »
I must have missed this as it was originally posted 4 years ago and a shorter version was posted today, so here it is a bit late but always fun to watch.

Project Orion: Secret Mars Mission Powered by Nuclear Bombs

Quote
Jul 25, 2018
Project Orion was a Supper Heavy Lift Spacecraft intended to be directly propelled by a series of explosions of atomic bombs behind the craft. This is a 10 Meter version with Eight astronauts, with around 100 tons of equipment and supplies, which could have made a round trip to Mars in 125 days. The biggest design is the "super" Orion design; at 8 million tonnes, it could easily be a city.

And yes, there is no sound in space.




Shorter version posted on July 7, 2023



It's Tony De La Rosa, ...I don't create this stuff, I just report it.

Offline catdlr

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12508
  • Enthusiast since the Redstones
  • Marina del Rey, California, USA
  • Liked: 10232
  • Likes Given: 8517
Re: Hazegrayart Master Thread
« Reply #49 on: 07/10/2023 09:45 am »
Here is another one I must have missed.  It was originally posted 4 years ago and a shorter version was posted today, so here it is a bit late but always fun to watch.

Sea Dragon Rocket: World's Largest Reusable Rocket Concept

Quote
July 10, 2023
The Sea Dragon rocket was a proposed heavy-lift launch vehicle designed by Robert Truax in the 1960s. While it never flew, the Sea Dragon rocket remains one of the largest and most ambitious launch vehicle concepts ever conceived.

Here are some key details about the Sea Dragon rocket:

Size and Payload: The Sea Dragon rocket was designed to be enormous, standing at a height of about 150 meters (500 feet) and having a diameter of 23 meters (76 feet). It was intended to launch payloads of up to 550 metric tons (1.2 million pounds) into low Earth orbit (LEO), which is significantly more than any rocket that has ever been successfully launched.

Unique Design: The Sea Dragon rocket was distinctive due to its unconventional construction method. It was planned to be built in two stages. The first stage would be constructed underwater and integrated with the launch platform. Once completed, the entire structure would be floated to the launch site, and the second stage would be attached on top.

Propulsion: The Sea Dragon rocket would have used a combination of liquid oxygen (LOX) and kerosene (RP-1) as propellants. The first stage was planned to use multiple engines, possibly derived from the F-1 engines used on the Saturn V rocket, while the second stage would have used a single large engine.

Purpose and Potential: The Sea Dragon rocket was intended to significantly reduce the cost of accessing space by leveraging the economy of scale. By launching massive payloads, it aimed to make space transportation more cost-effective. It was envisioned to be used for various purposes, including the launch of space station modules, lunar missions, and even manned missions to Mars.

Despite the impressive design, the Sea Dragon rocket never progressed beyond the conceptual stage. It faces numerous technical and logistical challenges, including the difficulty of transporting such a large vehicle by sea, the absence of appropriate launch facilities, and the uncertainties associated with its construction and operation.

While the Sea Dragon rocket remains an intriguing concept, it serves as a reminder of the engineering complexities involved in building and launching extremely large launch vehicles.

Long version


Short version


It's Tony De La Rosa, ...I don't create this stuff, I just report it.

Offline catdlr

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12508
  • Enthusiast since the Redstones
  • Marina del Rey, California, USA
  • Liked: 10232
  • Likes Given: 8517
Re: Hazegrayart Master Thread
« Reply #50 on: 07/14/2023 07:09 pm »
NASA's Lunar Outpost Heavy Lift Vehicle: The Comet Rocket

Published  Jul 14, 2023
Quote
The Comet Rocket is a proposed super heavy-lift launch vehicle (HLLV) designed for NASA's First Lunar Outpost Program (FLO) from a 1992-1993 Space Exploration Initiative. It was a Saturn V-derived launch vehicle with modernized engines, stretched fuel tanks, and strap-on boosters



Short version:



Additional Short Version:

« Last Edit: 07/15/2023 08:21 pm by catdlr »
It's Tony De La Rosa, ...I don't create this stuff, I just report it.

Offline catdlr

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12508
  • Enthusiast since the Redstones
  • Marina del Rey, California, USA
  • Liked: 10232
  • Likes Given: 8517
Re: Hazegrayart Master Thread
« Reply #51 on: 07/24/2023 08:45 pm »
U.S. Navy SPACE CRUISER Concept - Neptune Spear

Jul 24, 2023
Project: Neptune Spear

Quote
In a future where space exploration is the next frontier, Project Neptune Spear stands at the forefront of revolutionary Navy concepts. Spearheading this bold initiative is a highly classified joint effort between the U.S. Navy and space agencies, aiming to deploy a space capsule atop a Trident missile launched from an SSBN submarine.

Purpose:
Project Neptune Spear seeks to leverage the Navy's expertise in submarine-launched ballistic missiles and extend its capabilities beyond conventional terrestrial targets. The primary objective is to demonstrate rapid and covert deployment of satellites, scientific instruments, and crewed missions into Low Earth Orbit (LEO) and beyond while maintaining global strategic deterrence with Trident missile capabilities.

Key Components:

Trident SSBN Submarine:
The cornerstone of Project Neptune Spear is an advanced, stealthy Ohio-class submarine modified for space launch operations. The Trident SSBN (Submarine Ballistic Missile Nuclear-powered) submarine is equipped with cutting-edge technologies to accommodate the launch, integration, and preparation of the SPACE CRUISER. The submarine's existing launch tubes are adapted to securely house the space capsule, ensuring a stable launch platform.

SPACE CRUISER:
The SPACE CRUISER is a state-of-the-art spacecraft designed for crewed missions. It boasts a streamlined and aerodynamic shape to minimize drag during ascent and re-entry. The capsule is capable of carrying astronauts, scientific payloads, or satellites into space. Advanced life support systems provide a safe environment for extended missions.

Advanced Launch System (ALS):
The Advanced Launch System is a series of modifications to the Trident missile that enables it to carry and deploy the SPACE CRUISER into space. Additionally, the missile's propulsion system is optimized to ensure a smooth transition from submarine launch to space.





It's Tony De La Rosa, ...I don't create this stuff, I just report it.

Offline laszlo

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 988
  • Liked: 1322
  • Likes Given: 594
Re: Hazegrayart Master Thread
« Reply #52 on: 07/25/2023 01:57 pm »
Great video, ridiculous concept. I love these silly what-if videos.

Online Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15716
  • Liked: 8348
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Hazegrayart Master Thread
« Reply #53 on: 07/25/2023 04:17 pm »
Great video, ridiculous concept. I love these silly what-if videos.

This "Space Cruiser" concept was created in the 1980s, but I think there is only a very thin document about it--maybe a couple of pages illustrating it. No explanation or anything. It's totally ridiculous and I never understood what the heck the thing was supposed to do, let alone why you needed a person in there. It's like a comic book idea thought up by a 13-year-old boy.

You could make a long list of how many things are wrong/dubious for this:

-would you really want a big thing like that sticking up out of the sub? How would that affect maneuverability of the sub?

-that reentry vehicle is going to be directly exposed to the sea? Is that a good idea?

-the astronaut climbs inside with the sub on the surface, and then the sub dives?

-how does this thing find the target with any precision while out at sea for launch?

-the astronaut sticks his head out and attaches a grenade to the enemy satellite?

The acronym WTAF keeps coming up in my head.


« Last Edit: 07/25/2023 08:49 pm by Blackstar »

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5490
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1811
  • Likes Given: 1302
Re: Hazegrayart Master Thread
« Reply #54 on: 07/26/2023 09:14 am »
Great video, ridiculous concept. I love these silly what-if videos.
<snip>
You could make a long list of how many things are wrong/dubious for this:

-would you really want a big thing like that sticking up out of the sub? How would that affect maneuverability of the sub?

-that reentry vehicle is going to be directly exposed to the sea? Is that a good idea?

-the astronaut climbs inside with the sub on the surface, and then the sub dives?

-how does this thing find the target with any precision while out at sea for launch?

-the astronaut sticks his head out and attaches a grenade to the enemy satellite?
<snip>

For your edification.

The sub is an Ohio class boomer.  It more or less drifts underwater at shallow depth with the ocean currents most of the time. I consider the DARPA's STAR to be less of an obstruction to the sub's maneuverability than a carrying a DSRV (deep-submergence rescue vehicle) behind the sail on the top deck of the U.S.S. Jimmy Carter.

AIUI the when a ballistic missile is ejected underwater from a submarine silo it is exposed to sea water. AFAIK almost all strategic ballistic missiles deployed aboard a boomer sub can only ignites their motor after clearing the ocean surface and the water plume from the ejection.

The orbit of the targeted satellite is known not long after it's launch. Presumably it will be treated as any other targets on the sub's target list with updated orbital data when the launch order is transmitted to the sub. Think the Space Cruiser have the same mid-course guidance package as the reentry vehicles with the nukes with the Astronaut as terminal guidance.

The Astronaut is deploying a magnetic shaped-charged demolition charge likely with a adhesive coating on the business end.

As stated up thread the concept for the DARPA's STAR is bit crazy. Why Astronaut is required for the mission concept is that robotics and avionics hadn't advanced enough to replaced the Astronaut at the time the concept was conceived.





Offline TrevorMonty

Re: Hazegrayart Master Thread
« Reply #55 on: 07/26/2023 10:05 am »
Great video, ridiculous concept. I love these silly what-if videos.
I 2nd that. Thanks Hazygray.

Offline laszlo

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 988
  • Liked: 1322
  • Likes Given: 594
Re: Hazegrayart Master Thread
« Reply #56 on: 07/26/2023 10:20 am »
For your edification.

The sub is an Ohio class boomer.  It more or less drifts underwater at shallow depth with the ocean currents most of the time. I consider the DARPA's STAR to be less of an obstruction to the sub's maneuverability than a carrying a DSRV (deep-submergence rescue vehicle) behind the sail on the top deck of the U.S.S. Jimmy Carter.

AIUI the when a ballistic missile is ejected underwater from a submarine silo it is exposed to sea water. AFAIK almost all strategic ballistic missiles deployed aboard a boomer sub can only ignites their motor after clearing the ocean surface and the water plume from the ejection.

The orbit of the targeted satellite is known not long after it's launch. Presumably it will be treated as any other targets on the sub's target list with updated orbital data when the launch order is transmitted to the sub. Think the Space Cruiser have the same mid-course guidance package as the reentry vehicles with the nukes with the Astronaut as terminal guidance.

The Astronaut is deploying a magnetic shaped-charged demolition charge likely with a adhesive coating on the business end.

As stated up thread the concept for the DARPA's STAR is bit crazy. Why Astronaut is required for the mission concept is that robotics and avionics hadn't advanced enough to replaced the Astronaut at the time the concept was conceived.

Not being argumentative here, just carrying on the discussion in the spirit of fun.

The DSRV is hydrodynamically better shaped, closer to the deck with multiple support points and aligned with the direction of motion, reducing the moment arm and drag. It also doesn't require a missile hatch to be continuously open while cruising. Not only does that hatch cause the sub to have more lateral and wetted surface area, there are also drag forces along the length of the hinge mechanism that are not present during normal operations. The Submarine Force Museum in Groton, Connecticut has an open missile hatch on display near the entrance and the edge of that hatch is not designed to move smoothly through water. With the flow coming off the sail underwater, that could turn into metal fatigue-causing oscillations. The noise set up by the asymmetries could thwart any attempt at stealth.

A missile's seawater exposure during launch is a matter of seconds. The space cruiser is exposed the entire time that the sub is cruising around carrying it. Corrosion of the heatshield would have had to be guarded against. At the very least that would have added extra weight.

Now my own crazy idea - if that vehicle could withstand re-entry nose-first, it should have been very much stronger than any on-orbit spacecraft without re-entry capability. In that case, it didn't actually need the astronaut setting explosives. Just a low-speed bump with that nose at any random point on the target would have probably been enough to disable or destroy it.






Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5490
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1811
  • Likes Given: 1302
Re: Hazegrayart Master Thread
« Reply #57 on: 07/26/2023 10:59 am »
<snip>
Now my own crazy idea - if that vehicle could withstand re-entry nose-first, it should have been very much stronger than any on-orbit spacecraft without re-entry capability. In that case, it didn't actually need the astronaut setting explosives. Just a low-speed bump with that nose at any random point on the target would have probably been enough to disable or destroy it.
Won't work. The Soviet spy satellites of that period are more or less unmanned version of the various manned Soviet spacecraft. Which means they are quite structurally robust and have station keeping propulsion.

AIUI, the main purpose of the shaped-charge demolition charge is to penetrated at least one of the propellant tanks to empty its' contents out into space and hopefully putting the spacecraft into a uncontrolled and non-recoverable spin. The demolition charge isn't likely powerful enough to destroy the targeted spacecraft.

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 50841
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 85434
  • Likes Given: 38218
Re: Hazegrayart Master Thread
« Reply #58 on: 08/04/2023 03:50 pm »


Quote
ESA's Airbus Reusable Rocket: The Adeline

Hazegrayart
4 Aug 2023

Introducing Adeline - A Revolutionary Leap in Reusable Rocketry

Imagine a rocket that not only soars into the sky with a thunderous roar but elegantly glides back to Earth, ready for another thrilling journey among the stars. Enter Adeline (Advanced Expendable Launcher with Innovative engine Economy), a groundbreaking concept brought to life by the brilliant minds at Airbus Defence and Space. This audacious vision aims to redefine the boundaries of space travel by harnessing the power of drone technology to achieve horizontal runway landings - an awe-inspiring spectacle that is sure to leave space enthusiasts in absolute awe!

At the core of this visionary concept lies a rocket booster like no other. Equipped with propeller engines and cutting-edge avionics, it promises to be more than just a disposable first-stage component. Adeline's true genius lies in its ability to gracefully touch down on a runway, post-launch, only to be lovingly refurbished and sent off on yet another exhilarating adventure.

As the fiery launch propels the stage forward, the engine module knows its fate and bravely bids farewell, preparing for the daring descent. Here's where Adeline unleashes its wings - tiny, yet potent winglets that nimbly guide the booster towards its coveted runway destination. Thrilling, isn't it?

As the runway looms closer, the tension builds; this is the moment when the landing gear springs into action, providing the stability needed for a picture-perfect horizontal landing. To add a touch of ingenuity, two small pusher configuration propellers join the ensemble, lending that extra oomph to the landing. Talk about elegance and power wrapped into one!

Now, let's talk economics. Adeline has an ace up its sleeve. By reusing a whopping 80% of the stage's economic value - encompassing the engine, avionics, and propulsion bay - it stands as a beacon of sustainability and cost-effectiveness. SpaceX, though impressive with its vertical landing feats, does not escape the taxing stresses their booster engines endure during deceleration. Adeline, on the other hand, gracefully glides and only requires a modest 2,000 kg of fuel for a geostationary flight back to the ground. Compare that to the estimated 35,000 kg needed for a SpaceX booster's return to the launch site. Mind-blowing, right?

Now, fuel might be a mere fraction of the overall launch cost, but it's a game-changer for Adeline. The beauty lies in the reduction of launch costs, ranging from 21-40%. However, the catch lies in the payload capacity, which could diminish from 8,300 kg to 5,500 kg with this approach. But fret not, as the true cost advantage emerges when ferrying payloads much lower than the rocket's lift potential. Unleash the unused lift capacity, and voila! Extra fuel to recycle the rocket and unlock new realms of possibilities.

You might wonder where this marvel will find its niche. Fear not, for the future is ripe with potential. Adeline could seamlessly integrate into the evolution of Ariane 6 or any liquid-fueled rocket. Talk about versatility!

Embarking on this interstellar journey was no easy feat. Airbus commenced this ambitious program in 2010, investing a staggering €15 million by May 2015 to refine the art of reusability. Scale models took flight, fueling the dream of a reusable rocket future. As Ariane 6 takes center stage in Airbus's development priorities, Adeline awaits her turn to shine.

Of course, with every bold venture, there are skeptics lurking in the shadows. In 2018, an official from the CNES launcher directorate expressed doubts about the concept's financial viability. But remember, history has shown that audacious visions often take time to win over skeptics and blaze new trails.

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 50841
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 85434
  • Likes Given: 38218
Re: Hazegrayart Master Thread
« Reply #59 on: 08/11/2023 02:17 pm »


Quote
China's Space Station "Tiangong" Fly Around

11 Aug 2023

The Tiangong Space Station is a Chinese space station that is fully operational. It is being developed by the China National Space Administration (CNSA) as a part of China's ambitious space program. The name "Tiangong" translates to "Heavenly Palace" in English.

The Tiangong Space Station consists of multiple modules that will serve various purposes, including living quarters for astronauts, scientific research laboratories, and facilities for conducting experiments in microgravity. It is designed to be a long-term, modular space station similar to the International Space Station (ISS), but with a smaller scale.

The construction of the Tiangong Space Station is planned to occur in several phases:

Tiangong-1: This was China's first space station module, launched in 2011. It served as a prototype and tested various technologies and docking procedures.

Tiangong-2: Launched in 2016, this module was used to conduct additional docking and rendezvous tests.

Tiangong Modules (Tianhe, Wentian, Mengtian): The core module, named Tianhe (meaning "Harmony of the Heavens"), was launched in April 2021. It serves as the main living and working area for astronauts. It has docking ports for additional modules, which will be added in subsequent launches. Wentian and Mengtian are two experiment modules that will attach to Tianhe.

The Tiangong Space Station will host a variety of scientific experiments in fields such as astronomy, biology, materials science, and more. It will also serve as a platform for international collaboration, with countries being able to send astronauts and participate in research projects aboard the station.

The completion of the Tiangong Space Station represents a significant milestone in China's space program, showcasing the country's growing capabilities in space exploration, technology, and scientific research.

"China's Tiangong Space Station" (https://skfb.ly/oEzAB) by thaweverything is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/b....

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0